| dbo:abstract |
In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. One scholar explained: The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out. — John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 A ruling of nonjusticiability, in the end, prevents the issue that brought the case before the court from being resolved in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine, the issue presented before the court is either so specific that the Constitution gives sole power to one of the political branches, or the issue presented is so vague that the Constitution does not even consider it. A court can only decide issues based on the law. The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes. (en) 통치행위(統治行爲, Political question)란 국가기관의 행위 가운데 고도의 정치성을 가져서 사법통제에 논란이 있는 행위를 말하는 행정법 · 헌법상 용어이다. 프랑스에서는 이를 통치행위(acte de gouvernement), 독일에서는 재판에서 자유로운 고권행위(rechtswegfreie Hoheitsakte) 또는 통치행위(Regierungsakte), 미국에서는 정치문제(Political question), 영국에서는 대권행위(prerogative) 또는 국가행위(acts of state)라는 이론으로 주장되었고, 또 판례에 의하여 승인되었다. 한국에서는 가 확립되고 행정소송에서 개괄주의가 채택되고 있는 이상 통치행위를 인정할 필요가 없다는 견해(즉, 통치행위 부정설)도 있으나 아직까지는 의미가 있다는 제한적 긍정설이 다수설이다. 반면에 미국, 영국 등에서는 통치행위가 광범위하게 인정되고 있다. (ko) 統治行為論（とうちこういろん）とは、「国家統治の基本に関する高度な政治性」を有する国家の行為については、法律上の争訟として裁判所による法律判断が可能であっても、高度の政治性ある事柄に関しては司法審査の対象から除外するという理論。三権分立の民主主義国家の国際法・国家間合意に関する外交問題など国家の行く末に関わるような重大な事柄に関して、国民に選ばれた訳でなく間違った判断をした際の責任も負えない裁判所よりも国民に選挙で選ばれた政府の立場尊重を基本とするために「司法自制の原則」ともいわれる。統治行為論は、フランスの判例が採用した『acte de gouvernement（アクト・ド・グベルヌモン）』の理論に由来するものであり、フランスでは行政機関の行為に関して問題とされた。これに対し、アメリカでは『political question（ポリティカル・クエスチョン）』と言われ、同様に選挙で選出された立法機関（議会）の行為に対しても、立法府の司法府への優越が適用される。日本では「統治行為」という名称に、フランスの影響が見られる。 (ja) 政治问题原则（英語：Political question doctrine，法語：Acte de gouvernement，日语：統治行為）是宪法学的概念，指法院把某些事项的决定权排除于司法审查的范畴外，把最终决定权委托给政府中的政治部门，或保留由超政府行为来解决。政治问题与（justiciability）密切相关，是对宪法诉讼和司法审查的限制。政治问题原则涉及到法院系统是否是裁判问题的适当场合（appropriate forum）。法院系统仅有权审理和决定可诉的法律问题，而无权决定不可诉的政治问题。 对于涉及政治性较强的问题，法院有时会将其认定为政治问题，从而导致其无法在法庭通过诉讼解决，既不可诉。在因政治原则而认定为不可诉的典型案件中，该事项可能是宪法条文规定由政治机关（如立法或行政机关）处理。反之，政治问题也可能过于模糊，以至于宪法没有规定，由于需要非法律性质的知识或技能，所以法院不认为自身适合解决。如法院没有宪法作为指导，便没有法律标准可循。此时，法院可能判定该事项需要通过民主程序决定，而非由法院参与政治纠纷。 (zh) |
| rdfs:comment |
통치행위(統治行爲, Political question)란 국가기관의 행위 가운데 고도의 정치성을 가져서 사법통제에 논란이 있는 행위를 말하는 행정법 · 헌법상 용어이다. 프랑스에서는 이를 통치행위(acte de gouvernement), 독일에서는 재판에서 자유로운 고권행위(rechtswegfreie Hoheitsakte) 또는 통치행위(Regierungsakte), 미국에서는 정치문제(Political question), 영국에서는 대권행위(prerogative) 또는 국가행위(acts of state)라는 이론으로 주장되었고, 또 판례에 의하여 승인되었다. 한국에서는 가 확립되고 행정소송에서 개괄주의가 채택되고 있는 이상 통치행위를 인정할 필요가 없다는 견해(즉, 통치행위 부정설)도 있으나 아직까지는 의미가 있다는 제한적 긍정설이 다수설이다. 반면에 미국, 영국 등에서는 통치행위가 광범위하게 인정되고 있다. (ko) 統治行為論（とうちこういろん）とは、「国家統治の基本に関する高度な政治性」を有する国家の行為については、法律上の争訟として裁判所による法律判断が可能であっても、高度の政治性ある事柄に関しては司法審査の対象から除外するという理論。三権分立の民主主義国家の国際法・国家間合意に関する外交問題など国家の行く末に関わるような重大な事柄に関して、国民に選ばれた訳でなく間違った判断をした際の責任も負えない裁判所よりも国民に選挙で選ばれた政府の立場尊重を基本とするために「司法自制の原則」ともいわれる。統治行為論は、フランスの判例が採用した『acte de gouvernement（アクト・ド・グベルヌモン）』の理論に由来するものであり、フランスでは行政機関の行為に関して問題とされた。これに対し、アメリカでは『political question（ポリティカル・クエスチョン）』と言われ、同様に選挙で選出された立法機関（議会）の行為に対しても、立法府の司法府への優越が適用される。日本では「統治行為」という名称に、フランスの影響が見られる。 (ja) 政治问题原则（英語：Political question doctrine，法語：Acte de gouvernement，日语：統治行為）是宪法学的概念，指法院把某些事项的决定权排除于司法审查的范畴外，把最终决定权委托给政府中的政治部门，或保留由超政府行为来解决。政治问题与（justiciability）密切相关，是对宪法诉讼和司法审查的限制。政治问题原则涉及到法院系统是否是裁判问题的适当场合（appropriate forum）。法院系统仅有权审理和决定可诉的法律问题，而无权决定不可诉的政治问题。 对于涉及政治性较强的问题，法院有时会将其认定为政治问题，从而导致其无法在法庭通过诉讼解决，既不可诉。在因政治原则而认定为不可诉的典型案件中，该事项可能是宪法条文规定由政治机关（如立法或行政机关）处理。反之，政治问题也可能过于模糊，以至于宪法没有规定，由于需要非法律性质的知识或技能，所以法院不认为自身适合解决。如法院没有宪法作为指导，便没有法律标准可循。此时，法院可能判定该事项需要通过民主程序决定，而非由法院参与政治纠纷。 (zh) In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while pol (en) |
